A little reality check poll here....

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also if you believe the 2nd Amendments and the framer's mindset and the finding of Miller v. US that an armed citizenry is the greatest balance to liberty. It would seem only fair that private law abiding citizens be allowed to own automatic firearms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should private citizens be able to own nuclear devices? Why/why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

A law abiding citizen owning a nuclear device? I got nothing to fear from them. Now I will insist that the storage be regulated so that my dog doesn't grow two heads. Or godzilla is created in my neighbor's backyard.

You could argue that nuclear items and\or bombs are indiscriminate in their use and therefore should be restricted. But just like it is illegal to blindfold youself and start shooting in all directions because of negligence and indistriminate nature of the use, so is the improper use of a nuclear or explosive device.

Honestly, you trust the government with nuclear weapons and they are people like you and me. In fact, we might be more intelligent and\or educated then them.

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just plain retarded. What happens when someone builds a nuke and holds New York city hostage for 20 billion dollars a day? If there possesion and production of nuclear weapons is legal than we cannot take action against them untill it is too late.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL,

I am really afraid of this happen because of all the underground nuclear building facilities that will spring up. You do know that the Manhattan Project cost 20 BILLION dollars in 1942-1945.

It is really a moot point because no one will be able to build one because of the cost. It's retarded to even fear this.

I stand by my earlier post. I have nothing to fear from a law abiding citizen owning arms of any type. To equate nuclear devices with guns of any form is a little naive.

-Gryph

[Jedster]

On an annual basis in the U.S.:

- There are roughly 80 million households with guns and 30k gun deaths
- There are roughly 100 million households with cars and 40k auto deaths

States are allowed to highly regulate car usage and require insurance.

Pretending for sake of argument that the second amendment did not exist (I know it does), why shouldn't the same apply to guns?

[mrgold]

I didnt equate the two but to work from the principle that government regulation of any and all weapon possesion by law abiding citizens is wrong is retarded. Besides it occurs to me that 20 billion dollars (although I would guess it would be less today) would be a small price to pay for the privlege of holding a whole city hostage.

On a more relevant note murder rates are higher in the United States than they are in most other nations where gun possesion is illegal. The acessebility of weapons (particularly handguns) is an important factor in the amount of violent crime (even if you don't think it is an important factor, it is clearly a factor). You can argue that the increased risk is offset by the pleasure that many people get out of gun ownership (I would make this case for alchohol and marijuana) but with respect to assault weapons (or anything beyond a hunting rifle for that matter) I don't see a tradeoff worthy of increased murder rates.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
On an annual basis in the U.S.:

- There are roughly 80 million households with guns and 30k gun deaths
- There are roughly 100 million households with cars and 40k auto deaths

States are allowed to highly regulate car usage and require insurance.

Pretending for sake of argument that the second amendment did not exist (I know it does), why shouldn't the same apply to guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

States do not regulate car usage. They make crimes for misuse of the automobile. No says that you can't own this car or that car.

As to you question, the whole point is that the 2nd Amendment exists. I, unlike others, think that it is OK for states to regulate firearms as they please within the boundries of their constitutions. But with the advent of the 14th Amendment the 2nd Amendment is then applied to the states.

-Gryph

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
States do not regulate car usage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Varies states to state, but I think in many states, car usage is most certainly regulated (depending on what you mean by 'usage'). As Jedster mentioned, I think auto-insurance is mandatory in most states.

[ QUOTE ]
No says that you can't own this car or that car.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to live in Massachusetts; someone who still lives there can come correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they still do annual auto inspections (required by law). And if your car fails the inspection, you won't get an inspection sticker (needed to prove your car has passed inspection), and you can no longer drive the car legally (until necessary repairs are made, etc). Michigan has no such inspection system, but I think similar systems are common in many states. Not to mention various registration and licensing fees levied by states, etc.

And I'm pretty sure automobile manufacturers are somewhat (if not heavily) regulated - emissions standards is certainly one contentious political issues (particularly here in Michigan), for instance (although certainly not the only one related to regulations placed on the auto industry).

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt equate the two but to work from the principle that government regulation of any and all weapon possesion by law abiding citizens is wrong is retarded. Besides it occurs to me that 20 billion dollars (although I would guess it would be less today) would be a small price to pay for the privlege of holding a whole city hostage.

On a more relevant note murder rates are higher in the United States than they are in most other nations where gun possesion is illegal. The acessebility of weapons (particularly handguns) is an important factor in the amount of violent crime (even if you don't think it is an important factor, it is clearly a factor). You can argue that the increased risk is offset by the pleasure that many people get out of gun ownership (I would make this case for alchohol and marijuana) but with respect to assault weapons (or anything beyond a hunting rifle for that matter) I don't see a tradeoff worthy of increased murder rates.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would still cost more than all Bill Gates has to build a nuclear device.

I will not argue that there is a criminal gun culture in America. If you look at the statistics, most of the homicide related deaths in America are related to criminal activity. So outright banning guns does nothing to stop the criminal element that wants to misuse guns.

As for the other nations, Scotland the Most Dangerous Developed Country. The crime rate has gone up since gun control has increased in UK, Canada, Australia, etc. The facts don't support gun control and never have. Restricting the possession and carrying of firearms by nature only effects LAW ABIDING citizens. I do not carry my gun in DC because I CAN'T not because I am not trustworthy, but there are a lot of people in DC with guns who wish to terrorize me. I am defenceless against them now. We need a level playing field. If gun were legal in DC, I think you would find less crime because there will be less people to repeat offenses.

What happen in N.O. is a perfect example of why firearms are needed including these so-called "assault" weapons. What does that term mean anyway? Every gun is the same pull the trigger bullets come out. They aren't going faster or heavier calibre. Its just a term to make a firearm sound "scary".

-Gryph

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
States do not regulate car usage. They make crimes for misuse of the automobile. No says that you can't own this car or that car.
-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

States do regulate car usage. For example, to own a car in my state, you pay a car licensing fee. You also have to pay one to my city. In addition, to use a car you need a driver's license and insurance. To get a license you need to be a certain age, et cetera. Should blind people be allowed to use cars? Should blind people be allowed to use guns?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
States do not regulate car usage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Varies states to state, but I think in many states, car usage is most certainly regulated (depending on what you mean by 'usage').

[ QUOTE ]
No says that you can't own this car or that car.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to live in Massachusetts; correct me if I'm wrong, but they still do annual auto inspections (required by law), correct? And if your car fails the inspection, you won't get a registration sticker and you can no longer drive the car legally (until necessary repairs are made, etc). Michigan has no such inspection system, but I think it's common in many states.

And I'm pretty sure automobile manufacturers are somewhat (if not heavily) regulated - emissions standards is certainly one contentious political issues (particularly here in Michigan), for instance (although certainly not the only one).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well we are going to get into sematics here. What do we define as "use".

As for the inspections, I would have no problem with the government requiring my firearms to be in good working condition. It would be much use to me if they weren't.

And car regulations only exist to the point of being on the ROAD. You can have any car in any condition that you want at home.

But as pertaining to firearms, we are lucky to live in a country that states the right to "keep" and "bear" arms will not be infringed. I only care what the Constitution says and what wisdom has prevailed.

I just don't think that as a nation we can have a honest look at gun control because the gun control people are seized by irrational fear and a desire to stem the violence. I have a desire to stem the gun violence and crime in America too. My plan involves inforcing the law and carrying a gun to protect myself because the police are not obliged to do it.

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
States do not regulate car usage. They make crimes for misuse of the automobile. No says that you can't own this car or that car.
-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

States do regulate car usage. For example, to own a car in my state, you pay a car licensing fee. You also have to pay one to my city. In addition, to use a car you need a driver's license and insurance. To get a license you need to be a certain age, et cetera. Should blind people be allowed to use cars? Should blind people be allowed to use guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my earlier post...

The government doesn't say that I can't take my H2 or Ferrari here or there. The state check to see if I can drive my car or buy a gun. I am not arguing that point.

Don't go off on a side track with cars. There is not constitutional right to drive a car. There is one to own and use a firearm legally.

-Gryph

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
States do not regulate car usage.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Well we are going to get into sematics here. What do we define as "use".

And car regulations only exist to the point of being on the ROAD. You can have any car in any condition that you want at home.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can define 'use' as something along the lines of 'any non-stationary automobile'. To be sure, I'm unaware that states have regulations concerning cars sitting at home in the garage; yet I think they do regulate cars being 'used', or 'car usage'.

Seems strange to me that when you say 'states do not regulate car usage' , you're referring to cars not on the road, or cars not being used.

To that end, I think Jedster's (or whichever poster's) automobile analogy is appropriate. Certainly, though, there's a Constitutional issue that's not easily dismissible.